To think that this 'advice' column in today's Guardian is bang out of order?

Excuse me? Did I misread that? In what fucking world is it 'reprehensible' for a woman to fail to tell a prospective employer that she's planning on getting pregnant at an interview? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fucking illegal for a company to allow something like that to sway their decision anyway, even if said woman is already pregnant?

Not illegal but it is not in the spirit that maternity laws were intended in, and it reflects badly on women who apply for jobs with no intention of having children who that have already had their children. I don't think there is a way around it unfortunately, all legislation has people that will exploit it every which way they can.

He often advises women to talk about possible pregnancy / pregnancy at a job interview. Very into the spirit of greater openness, and no doubt the employer will respect that, etc etc. I think he's being unrealistic.

I agree with Donna. Sorry, but I wouldn't do this, I really wouldn't, because I have been on the receiving end of discrimination due to others using the system like this. Sure, it's legal, though. Personally, I think the 1-year mat leaves have a lot to answer for. They put fear into a lot of employers, with good reason, I have worked with several who took a year and came back pregnant. Legal, have to plan for it, etc etc, but it was a major PITA.

Good grief!! What if it takes her several years to conceive? Not every woman gets pregnant at the drop of a hat. And even if she did, WHO CARES? This is what equality is about.. and who is to say the father won't take some of the leave too? If it's her first it's very likely she'd return to a job if she loved it, whilst the childcare costs are still manageable.

I can't believe a paper like the Guardian (not that I have a lot of respect for it anyway, but still) is advocating something like that. Clearly he does not live in the real world, of losses, infertility, employers making up non-childbearing-related excuses etc..

Maybe if jobs stopped all being 3 year contracts, and actually went back to being permanent, then women wouldn't have to time getting pregnant to be within 'contract' i.e. fairly soon after starting a job, and could actually use maternity leave as intended after being in post for several years and employers could quit fucking whining about losing time when it's really insignificant over the lifespan of a permanent employee. Oh wait we can't ask anything of them but they can treat us like shite and if we don't announce our reproductive status it's 'reprehensible'. Viva misogyny.

There there.. Geez what a bunch of over reaction.. Try this on..A "Oh you want me to hire you?" B Yes I'd love that.. but..A But what?B Hire me then I'm busy for a year so I can't really work for you but I want to get paid anyway.A I'm sorry?B It's the lawA I'm going bankruptB It's the law

arealman a few errors there, you don't get paid for a year. Statutory mat pay is 39 weeks, the remaining 13 weeks are without money. Additionally 92% of the Â£136 per week is paid the government. If an employer is going to go bankrupt over the remaining 8% they have bigger problems than people on mat leave.

If society was more equal, and it was more accepted for either parent to take the leave then I doubt this would ever come up as an issue as it would just be accepted that people may take time off when a child is born.

I don't understand why there is so much overreaction to this advice - I know he has dared to point out that sometimes it's best to stick to one thing at a time when it comes to having babies and having a career, but in reality this is common sense. She points out that she is bored in her job but that the maternity benefit was generous - I don't understand why anyone would start a new job with new priorities and challenges and have a baby at the same time. It might be different if a once in a lifetime employment opportunity had come up and she was actually pregnant, in that case I'd think she should absolutely move to the new job, there is no reason why having a child should hold you back in your career. However, actively looking for new employment whilst actively trying for a baby is not wise. Returning to work after a baby is hard enough without knowing people properly or having to learn a new role. Surely she can stand being bored in her job for a few months whilst she makes her baby the priority? When she returns to her job then she'll not feel as pressured. She could even look for prospective employers whilst on maternity leave, then contact them once she a back at work.

Secondly, it's a very unfair thing to do to any company, but especially to smaller companies in this climate. A new employee is there to be relied on and should be as honest as possible, it's not always about paying maternity pay. Having the intention of trying for a baby is slightly different though, the writer is being very dramatic and over thinking things.

yes your SMP will not be affected by new job but some companies that offer more than the legal minimum ( such as company OP is currently with) often have clauses that the more generous MP has to be paid back if you do not return for a certain minimum period and sometimes the enhanced package is only available after 2 years

NHS dentistry ( where dentists is self employed which is most dentists) only gives enhanced package after 2 years and you have to go back for at least 3 months